Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Ninth Circuit Spikes Berkeley’s Gas Ban

By Robert Bryce | April 18, 2023

Three federal court judges just rescued your gas stove and other gas-fired appliances from the nanny state.

Yesterday, in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the nation’s first ban on natural gas, put in place by the City of Berkeley in 2019, violates federal law. The three judges found that the city’s ordinance was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, which prohibits the implementation of regulations that favor one type of fuel over another.

The first report I saw on the court’s ruling was here on Substack by my friend, Ed Ireland. There’s no doubt that the decision is a huge win for consumers, businesses, and energy security. Indeed, the ruling in California Restaurant Association vs. City of Berkeley, has ramifications that go beyond California and the Ninth Circuit. It should invalidate the dozens of gas bans that have been enacted across the country over the past four years. It may also mean that plans by federal authorities, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to ban, or restrict, the use of gas stoves, gas furnaces, and other gas-fired appliances, are kaput.

About 47 million American homes have gas stoves and lots of chefs, and consumers, including Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, like cooking with gas. The Department of Energy’s own numbers show that heating homes with gas is far cheaper than heating with electricity. Despite these facts, a group of lavishly funded activist groups have been pushing electrify everything mandates that would prohibit the use of gas in homes and businesses and require consumers to rely almost exclusively (including energy for electric vehicles) on our already-shaky electric grid. The electrify everything claque got a boost in January after Richard Trumka Jr., who sits on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, told a Bloomberg reporter that gas stoves are a hazard and that “any option is on the table,” including, presumably, a ban.

Trumka’s comments sparked a storm of criticism. Within hours, the White House issued a statement saying that President Joe Biden doesn’t support a ban on gas stoves.

What has since been dubbed the “gas stove culture war” was ignited in July 2019, when Berkeley became the first municipality in the country to ban the use of gas. Since then, as I explained in January, (See: “The Billionaires Behind The Gas Bans”), several NGOs, including Climate Imperative, the Sierra Club, and Rocky Mountain Institute, as well as Rewiring America, have spent untold (and undisclosed) millions of dollars campaigning and lobbying at the local and national levels to ban the direct use of natural gas in homes and businesses. And thanks to remarkably friendly (and largely unquestioning) coverage from legacy media outlets, they’ve had undeniable success.

The Sierra Club, which operates on an annual budget of about $180 million, says 74 communities in California have “adopted gas-free buildings commitments or electrification building codes.” But that number doesn’t include the most recent ban. On April 13, the Irvine City Council, again according to the Sierra Club, adopted measures mandating that all new buildings be all-electric “on or after July 1, 2023. That puts the number of California communities that have banned gas at 75. The group isn’t just pushing for restrictions in its home state. Last August, it asked the Environmental Protection Agency to ban natural gas appliances at the federal level.

In September, the California Air Resources Board voted to ban the sale of all gas-fired space heaters and water-heating appliances in the state by 2030. New York City and Seattle have banned the use of gas in new construction. Massachusetts is also rolling out a measure that will allow up to 10 communities to ban gas.

As I reported last month (See: “California Screamin’”), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District recently approved regulations that will ban the use of residential and commercial natural gas-fired water heaters and furnaces. The regulation, which only applies to new appliances, prohibits residents in the Bay Area from buying or installing gas water heaters starting in 2027. Also last month, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, said she is working on a “climate friendly” building code that will hamper or––in the words of the Boston Globe, “discourage”––the use of hydrocarbons in new buildings in Boston.

Following the proliferation of gas bans requires following the money. The Sierra Club has been a prime beneficiary of former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Bloomberg Philanthropies, which has pledged $500 million to the Beyond Carbon project. In 2019, the pledge was considered the largest ever “philanthropic donation to combat climate change.” The Sierra Club is now getting about $30 million per year from Bloomberg.

For several years, the Rocky Mountain Institute, a group that took in $115 million in 2022, has been ginning up bogus studies that claim gas stoves are a threat to human health. And like the Sierra Club, it is getting big money from super-rich donors. In 2020, the Bezos Earth Fund gave RMI $10 million. RMI said the cash from the group, which, of course, came from Amazon founder and multi-billionaire Jeff Bezos, would help fund its “work with a coalition of partners in key states. The project will focus on making all U.S. buildings carbon-free by 2040 by advocating for all-electric new construction.”

In January, numerous national news stories were published after RMI issued a paper claiming that 12.7 percent of childhood asthmas are due to gas stoves. One of the authors of that paper, Talor Gruenwald, works at RMI. Gruenwald is also a research associate at Rewiring America, a San Francisco-based outfit that calls itself the “leading electrification nonprofit, focused on electrifying our homes, businesses, and communities.” Rewiring America is funded entirely by dark money. It doesn’t publish its budget or file a Form 990. Instead, it is a sponsored project of the Windward Fund, a 501c3 non-profit that does not disclose its donors. Nor does the Windward Fund reveal how much it is giving to Rewiring America.

The January RMI paper didn’t stand up to even modest scrutiny. The definitive analysis of indoor air pollution and gas stoves was published in 2013 in Lancet Respiratory Medicine. It studied half a million schoolchildren in 47 countries over a multi-year period and relied on questionnaires that were filled out by the mothers of the children. It concluded, “We detected no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and either asthma symptoms or asthma diagnosis.”

Furthermore, just a day or two after the RMI paper came out, the group walked back its claim about asthma, with one RMI official telling the Washington Examiner that the study “does not assume or estimate a causal relationship” between childhood asthma and natural gas stoves.

April 18, 2023 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Disasters report features ‘crudely manipulated data’

Global Warming Policy Foundation – April 17, 2023

London – The Global Warming Policy Foundation has called on the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to withdraw its fatally flawed 2022 Disasters in Numbers report.

The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), together with the Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), recently published their 2022 report on “Disaster in Numbers.”

On its front cover, the report deceptively suggests that the 387 reported disasters, the loss of 30,704 lives, affecting 185 million individuals and causing economic damage of $223.8 billion are due to “climate in action” – although the report also covers earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides and wildfires.

The annual review of disasters of all kinds has been examined by extreme weather expert, Dr Ralph Alexander, who has published a strongly worded critique at his website.
Dr Alexander notes that:

* data has been crudely manipulated to suggest that there may be a hidden underlying increase in weather-related disasters

* false claims are made on the basis of statistically invalid comparisons.

GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser said:

“Dr Alexander has shown that the authors of the latest ‘Disasters in Numbers’ report are bending over backwards to provide support for the narrative of climate doom, when the data and trends of weather-related disasters are pointing in the opposite direction.
The Catholic University and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) should be ashamed of what is appearing in their name. This publication is fatally flawed and should be withdrawn.”

More information:
* Ralph Alexander: CRED’s 2022 Disasters in Numbers report is a disaster in itself
* 2022 Disasters in Numbers

April 18, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Climate Change Scandal in Australia Heating Up

BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | APRIL 17, 2023

Further significant doubts have been cast on the accuracy of global surface temperature results following the discovery that electronic thermometers in Australia have read up to 0.7°C higher than traditional mercury glass units. The Australian dataset is a major component of global compilations since it provides an important guide to one of the largest land masses in the southern hemisphere. After many years of trying, local freedom of information requests from scientists have forced the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) to release comparative information from the two measuring devices around Brisbane airport. It shows that automatic readings are higher 41% of the time, compared with 32% when the temperatures were the same.

Electronic temperatures devices have been in general use in Australia since 1995. The guidance of the World Meteorological Organisation suggests averaging temperatures over a minute to remove corruptions caused by temporary effects such as a sudden gust of hot air. But the BoM records highs for just a second, something that basic mercury thermometers cannot do. For years, the BoM has refused to release comparative instrument data.

The Australian journalist Jo Nova takes a sceptical view as to why the BoM has been so stubborn. Potentially, the electronic sensors “offer a bonanza of propaganda headlines for the Green Blob to pick from, especially when ‘coldest ever days’ get ignored by the media”. The sensors are offering many more headlines of records for heat, heatwaves, hottest nights, more days over 35°C, she continued, adding, “there are many cherries to be picked here”.

The use of highly sensitive measuring equipment to produce temperature records and hence whip up climate emergency fears is common throughout the world. Last year In the U.K., the Met Office promoted a ‘record’ high of 40.3°C halfway down the runway at RAF Coningsby on the afternoon of July 19th. Admittedly, the record was declared to have stood for longer than a second – 60 seconds to be precise. To this day, the Met Office has refused to answer a number of Daily Sceptic enquiries about possible non-climatic causes of this widely promoted record. In the light of the Australian disclosures, we wonder if the Met Office should re-examine the way it declares heat records and compare the results of its measuring devices with those produced by basic mercury thermometers.

Dr. Jennifer Marohasy analysed the three years of Australian data that was eventually squeezed out of the BoM and found significant differences between the two measuring devises. In the most extreme cases, the modern probe was 0.7°C hotter than the mercury reading. She said it contradicted claims by the Bureau’s director Andrew Johnson that measurements from the two instruments are equivalent. Marohasy estimates the BoM holds data for a total of 38 different locations across Australia. The small Brisbane airport cache is thought to be the first public release of this data.

The former Liberal MP and noted climate sceptic Craig Kelly was merciless in his condemnation of the BoM actions. Noting the Bureau’s decision to reduce the size of protective Stevenson screens, which he said was known to artificially increase temperature recordings by up to 1°C, he concluded that Australia’s temperature records “have been cooked to artificially manufacture ‘hottest day ever’ headlines in the media”. Heads must roll, he demanded, but with the new Labor Government protecting this “malfeasance” at the BoM “they’ll get away with it”.

The Australian weighed in by suggesting that the Brisbane revelations raised some “difficult questions” about the BoM’s ability to claim new temperature records are being broken. “Given that new records are claimed on the basis of readings that are only a tiny fraction of a degree warmer, the problem is obvious,” it said in an editorial. The lengths to which the Bureau has gone not to cooperate with FOI requests, it continued, “gives the impression of an organisation with something to hide”. The newspaper said it was “truly astonishing” that the Bureau should suggest that understanding the effect of instrumentation was of no public interest. “This is particularly so given the Bureau was simultaneously publishing reports and giving media interviews claiming that a temperature increase of 1.5°C would have devastating consequences for the planet,” the editorial said.

The BoM information from 38 sites is of more than academic interest, noted the newspaper. This is because much of it eventually finds its way into what becomes the international global temperature record, on which climate change policy is based. The information is the property of the public, it states, and all the parallel records “should be made immediately available alongside all of the other data the Bureau prides itself on making public”.

These disturbing revelations about temperature gathering in Australia add to the numerous concerns that are mounting about the entire global surface temperature record. The Daily Sceptic has covered this story in great detail (see here, here and here). In this case, it seems that modern gauges have been used to establish new ‘records’, compared with the old mercury recordings. In addition, there may be a slight warming bias over the last 30 years, and if confirmed this will add to further corruption of global results. The BoM claimed its new electronic sensors were adjusted in light of mercury readings, but the Brisbane release suggests otherwise. It is particularly disturbing when public officials refuse to release scientific figures for no apparent good reason. The example of Climategate shows that when activists and scientists refuse to release basic data, it is time to start counting the spoons, if not undertaking an audit of the whole canteen.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

April 18, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

Nürnberg Health Dept. issues novel outdoor mask recommendation to combat … climate change-enhanced hay fever

eugyppius: a plague chronicle | April 17, 2023

Now that everyone has returned to his ordinary state of not caring what public health mandarins think about anything, the Nürnberg Health Department has decided to make a desperate pitch for continued relevancy and grab some headlines by asking the weary German public to dust off their masks once again:

It’s hay fever season, and one in five Germans suffers from a pollen allergy. To alleviate the symptoms, the Nürnberg Health Office is now advising people to wear masks outdoors. This is because FFP2 masks, as well as homemade ones, are good at blocking the small particles that cause allergies, which prevents the pollen from being absorbed via the airways.

Hay fever is the most common chronic disease in all industrialised nations and is associated with the blossoming of trees and woody plants … Many people are allergic to pollen and react with runny nose, scratchy throat, fatigue, shortness of breath and other allergy-related complaints. Climate change is extending the pollen season for some trees, grasses and other plants. This increases the length of time that people are exposed. Climate change also causes significant increases to the concentration of pollen earlier in the year.

You should think about masking to combat allergies now, even though you never did before, because of climate change, or something. That’s how stupid this is. It’s all based on the ravings of an allergist at Berlin Charité named Karl-Christian Bergmann, who is probably not smart enough to be a deep-cover mask sceptic secretly committed to depriving community masking of all credibility, and is in all likelihood issuing his obnoxious opinions on the continued use of public face coverings in all sincerity.

The recommendation comes just six weeks after the publication of a literature review in Heliyon, which surveys the existing experimental evidence to find that wearing a face mask for more than five minutes can increase the carbon dioxide concentration of inhaled air to as much as 3.2% – fully 80 times the concentration in fresh air, and perhaps ten times the toxicity threshold for chronic exposure. But, Bergmann and the Nürnberg public health lunitards think it might save you some sneezing, so really it’s all upside.

April 18, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

What Is a Safety Signal and Why Does It Matter?

By Ramesh Thakur | Brownstone Institute | April 18, 2023

The pandemic has been an extended three-year “teachable moment” for many of us who previously had been content to go along with the public health messages from our nearly universally trusted medical experts, drug regulators and public health institutions.

Safety Signals

In a peer-reviewed recent article, David Bell and colleagues concluded that “based on costs, disease burden and intervention effectiveness,” mass Covid-19 vaccination campaigns did “not meet standard public health requirements for clear expected benefit.” Several eminent experts warned about the likelihood of such a conclusion from the start and opinion has gradually been shifting towards this view, as I tried to summarize earlier.

In this article I want to look specifically at the concept of “safety signals” because I don’t believe the significance of this concept in medical science and public health interventions is widely understood in the general public.

I first became interested in this after watching Dr Peter McCullough in a TV interview with France Soir in June 2021. He pointed out that the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) normally records about 25 deaths per year from all vaccines. During the Covid pandemic, by 11 June 2021 it had verified 5,993 deaths, 20,737 hospitalizations, 47,837 urgent care visits, 1,538 anaphylaxis cases, and 1,868 cases of Bell’s palsy.

Because VAERS is a passive-surveillance system, he said, the general consensus is that the numbers are vastly underreported. He warned that this is “a major safety signal … that has exceeded all boundaries of acceptability.” Quizzed on the causal link to vaccines, he answered: “it’s biologically plausible, temporally associated, internally consistent month by month” and also “externally consistent” with data from the US, Europe and England. “The vaccine is in the causal pathway to death … The majority of these 6,000 Americans, they were healthy enough to walk into a vaccine center and within 2-4 days they’re dead.”

That was almost two years ago.

The European Medicines Agency defines “safety signal” as:

Information on a new or known adverse event that is potentially caused by a medicine and that warrants further investigation. Signals are generated from several sources such as spontaneous reports, clinical studies and the scientific literature.

The WHO says:

a safety signal refers to information on a new or known side effect that may be caused by a medicine and is typically generated from more than a single report of a suspected side effect.

A safety signal does not in and of itself establish a direct causal relationship between a medicine and any side effect. But it does generate “a hypothesis that, together with data and arguments, justifies the need” for an evaluation of “what is called causality assessment.”

To complete the trilogy of authoritative pronouncements on the meaning, role and critical importance of safety signals, Australia’s drugs regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, directs medicine sponsors that:

You should establish and manage a pharmacovigilance system to help you meet your pharmacovigilance responsibilities…

In terms of monitoring and collecting safety information, your pharmacovigilance system should allow you to:

  • identify and collect all information related to the safety of your medicine from all possible sources, including
    • spontaneous reports of adverse reactions (including consumer reports to you, or to people who work for you or have a contractual relationship with you)
    • internet and social media reports
    • reports from non-medical sources
    • solicited reports, such as from post-registration studies or post-market initiatives
    • reports in international and local literature
    • individual adverse drug reaction reports in the TGA’s Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN)…

If you verify a signal that may change the benefit–risk balance of a medicine, you MUST report it to us as a significant safety issue together with any actions you propose to take, or justification for no further action.

That seems pretty clear and comprehensive. If only it had been followed with respect to the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.

The Three Wise Monkeys

In recent times I have been ruminating over the intersection of the failure-cum-refusal of the public health officials to heed the safety signals in light of the cultural symbolism of the three monkeys. The origins of “The Three Wise Monkeys” are commonly attributed to Japan, although the proverb might have been brought there by Buddhist monks from India via China. Mizaru sees no evil by covering his eyes, Kikazaru hears no evil by covering his ears, and Iwazaru speaks no evil by covering his mouth.

The moral of the proverb is how to remain steadfast and morally upright even in the midst of evil. Instead, operating in the shadow perhaps of the militarized biosecurity state, the health authorities have seemed to have been operating under the injunction to “See No Harm, Hear No Harm, Speak No Harm,” thereby inverting both their own professional obligation to “First, Do No Harm” (Primum Non Nocere) and the wisdom of the three monkeys.

See No Harm

Without reprising ground that has been extensively covered in the dissenting literature already and is now reaching a broader and more receptive audience, let us recall the following. The original trial data of the manufacturers has been extensively analyzed to point to shortcomings, failures, refusal to publish the full raw data for independent cross-verification, allegations of fraudulent practices, and the deployment of the vaccine-sympathetic number of relative risk reduction while ignoring and downplaying the more vaccine-skeptical numbers of absolute risk reduction and the number needed to vaccinate in order to prevent one hospitalization, ICU admission and death.

The deliberate blind eye turned to the lagged temporal correlation between vaccine uptake and all-cause excess mortality is married to the focus on population-wide statistics instead of the age-segregated data for a disease whose burden shows a steep age gradient.

Regulators and authorities have proven to be just as determined to ignore the massive surge in the number of serious adverse events being reported as critics have been persistent in pointing to this as a critical safety signal that warrants further investigation and follow-up action. The phenomenon of fit and apparently healthy young athletes collapsing with alarming suddenness and frequency has provided visually powerful evidence of the possible harms from the vaccines.

The surge in miscarriages and fertility problems alongside the fall in birth rates nine months following vaccine rollouts is also being documented with increasing frequency and has the potential, Frijters, Foster and Baker argue, to rouse the slumbering public to righteous anger and calls for criminal accountability.

Hear No Harm

In the beginning, as vaccines began to be administered, some GPs and specialists, for example Dr Luke McLindon who has his own fertility clinic in Brisbane as well as Dr McCullough already referenced above, started speaking out about the alarming rate of serious adverse events and vaccine-related injuries they were noticing.

They quickly discovered that the drug regulators and their own medical licensing boards were deaf to all such reports. Their old fashioned fidelity to Primum Non Nocere was quaint but failed to charm the regulators.

Speak No Harm

Instead the regulators threatened them with professional disciplinary action and the threat was indeed carried out in a few instances. The modest numbers of doctors who lost their licenses does not invalidate the tactic. Authorities had adopted Sun Tzu’s advice to “Kill one, terrify a thousand.” We must appreciate how seriously worried these doctors of conscience must have been and the depth of courage they demonstrated in their duty of care to their patients that they risked their jobs and livelihoods in order to speak their truth to the powers that be. Bravo!

The understandings of the distribution of diseases in the population have a technical precision that they lack in general usage. We might think that in ordinary usage, five percent is rare. A disease is defined as “rare” if it affects about 1 in 2,000 people or about 0.05 percent, although it can range between 0.01–0.1 percent. “Very rare” is less than 0.01 percent; “uncommon,” 0.1–1.0 percent; “common,” 1–10 percent; and “very common,” ten percent upwards.

I have come to believe with the benefit of hindsight that the authorities intentionally conflated the common public understanding with the technical precision of the medical specialists in insisting that serious side effects have been very rare.

This was facilitated with the pandemic of media malfeasance. The Censorship-Industrial Complex was weaponized into a powerful tool of state power in an evolving system of governance that is a threat to the very survival of free society.

More Questions for the Public Health Clerisy

This raises some important questions. Was the mantra of “See No Harm, Hear No Harm, Speak No Harm” the result of:

  1. Regulatory capture by Big Pharma?
  2. Callous apathy, indifference and negligence by the regulators, public health institutions and medical establishments?
  3. Staggeringly gross incompetence?
  4. All of the above?
  5. Most importantly, which ones of the above do not cross the threshold of criminality? What should be done about the reality that in refusing to be responsive to safety signals, the guardians and watchdogs of public health failed to discharge the solemn responsibility that had been entrusted to them?

On 28 March WHO experts published a revised road map on vaccine strategies. In a sign they may be awakening to the risk of cross-vaccine hesitancy because of disillusionment with Covid vaccines, the guidance acknowledges: “The public health impact of vaccinating healthy children and adolescents is comparatively much lower than the established benefits of traditional essential vaccines for children.”

My final question is to the public health clerisy. If you become transparent on efficacy, investigate safety signals urgently and fully and publish the findings honestly: In the long run, will your credibility worsen, or will you begin to regain public trust and confidence?

N.B. This article grew out of a conversation on 15 April with Julie Sladden, Secretary of Australians for Science and Freedom, and Kara Thomas, Secretary of the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society.

Ramesh Thakur, a Brownstone Institute Senior Scholar, is a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, and emeritus professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.

April 18, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

The mad rush for ventilators in the Covid-19 killing fields, Part 2

By Niall McCrae and Roger Watson | TCW Defending Freedom | April 18, 2023

This is the second of our two-part series on the role played by ventilators in the pandemic phenomenon. In Part 1 published yesterday, which you can read here, we considered the dubious clinical rationale and adverse outcomes of the widespread use of ventilators, and today we explore the psychological purpose.

VENTILATORS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL TOOL

‘LOOK her in the eyes and tell her you never break the rules’, exclaimed a billboard posted around the country in spring 2020, each version depicting a petrified patient with a breathing tube or mask. This was the State of Fear documented by Laura Dodsworth (2020) in the aftermath of the first lockdown, imposed purportedly to limit the spread of a deadly new coronavirus. To achieve compliance with an unprecedented deprivation of liberties, the government pushed propaganda at every opportunity, inducing fear of the disease and loathing of anyone daring to stray from pandemic discipline.

For the regime to work, the people needed to be sufficiently scared. The virus was portrayed as universally life-threatening, with an exaggerated fatality rate in the early weeks derived from a relatively low number of cases. The reported rate of about 5 per cent declined after mass testing, which reduced the IFR to nearer that of influenza (this inversion was useful in demonstrating the effectiveness of lockdown and social distancing), but the initial message was highly effective.

Alongside the seriousness of the contagion was an absence of cure. For a patient who developed severe symptoms, typically drowning in pneumonia, the only chance of survival was to be intubated and to rely on a ventilator in the hope of microbial mercy.

Nothing invokes public dread more than scenes of multiple patients on ventilators; even better if those working around them are covered in maximally protective clothing and face masks. Rows of patients in ordinary hospital beds would not have had the same effect; indeed, in some televised recordings politicians visiting wards were met by stoical Brits, inconveniently chatty or smiling. NHS hospitals became a tightly scripted stage show, as illustrated by nurses doing choreographed TikTok dances (often imploring people to ‘stay at home’), and activist Debbie Hicks arrested (and later fined almost £1,000) for filming in her local hospital corridors.

‘Ventilator’ became le mot du jour in conversations with friends and family. This was all part of the theatre: overwhelmed doctors and nurses, beds in the corridors, hurriedly built Nightingale hospitals (which never fully opened), and a treatment apparatus that filled minds with fear. Being put on a ventilator may be traumatising, one Covid-19 patient reflecting on it as the ‘worst experience of her life’. The blunt message was that if you wanted to avoid such drastic intervention you must follow all guidelines and mandates.  Through their daily projection in mainstream media, ventilators were a useful tool for compliance with social distancing, lockdown, regular testing and mask-wearing.

Indeed, we suggest that the deployment of ventilators was primarily for psychological rather than clinical reasons. For many watching the news on television, this machine was as terrifying as the disease. Furthermore, it contributed to the government-desired yearning for a promised vaccine. Mainstream media, controlled by the authorities throughout the pseudo-pandemic, contributed to the fear by reporting that one’s chances of survival on a ventilator were at best 50:50. As discussed in Part One, the real odds were only about one in four.

Although ventilators aroused fear, their scarcity was also instrumental. As the outbreak reached the UK, people had seen images of chaotic hospitals in Italy, and wanted to believe that the wonderful NHS would be better prepared. Instead, they were told by news bulletins that only a fraction of the necessary machines were available. Reckless rule-breakers, perceived as tantamount to murderers running amok, were deemed undeserving of such resources.

On March 15 2020 prime minister Boris Johnson called on British manufacturing firms to adapt their production lines to making ventilators, with the Department of Health issuing specifications to companies that expressed interest. Yet despite the appearance of the government going on a war footing, there was no requisitioning, which you would expect if the need was so dire. Dyson designed a new machine, CoVent, but decided not to proceed with mass production after Covid-19 cases had passed a peak. Similarly in the US, the federal government announced a budget of a billion dollars for ventilator production, having lined up companies such as General Motors, but only a small fraction of the order was fulfilled.

Having failed to achieve its initial target of 18,000 mechanical ventilators by the end of April, the UK government was reportedly making substantial progress towards the later target of 30,000 by the end of June. Although incidence was falling, the authorities were preparing the public for a predicted second wave of the pandemic. Despite the disastrous results, and knowing that ultimately supply would vastly outstrip demand, ventilators remained centre-stage.

Like testing kits and other Covid-19 paraphernalia, ventilator provision was mired in allegations of ministers’ conflict of interest and corruption. As reported by Private Eye in Profits of Doom, thousands of these ventilators went into storage in Ministry of Defence warehouses. Nevertheless, the money for their purchase is stored in the bank accounts of the people who, subject to little scrutiny, supplied them.

Ventilators were elevated to a first-line treatment when they should have been a last resort. Their use as an instrument of fear is abhorrent, but worse is the suspicion that such equipment caused death. At the very least we can say that physicians continued to put Covid-19 patients on ventilators in the knowledge that this would most likely hasten their demise. This is quite a charge, but have we not seen enough crimes against humanity over the last three years to think the unthinkable?

April 18, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , | Leave a comment

AIDS – Fauci’s First Fraud

Rumble – Full Documentary

Full Documentary – Youtube:

Full Documentary – Bitchute

In honor of the memories of Nobel prize winner Kary Mullis (1944-2019), researcher and gay rights activist Hank Wilson (1947-2008), writer and activist Christine Maggiore (1956-2008), journalist Terry Michael (1947-2017), journalist Liam Scheff (d. 2017), and biomedical researcher David Crowe (d. 2020) who worked ceaselessly and courageously to expose the numerous frauds of Anthony Fauci and his fellow conspirators in the HIV=AIDS industry.

This is the story they would have us believe.

A deadly new virus is discovered… there’s no treatment or cure… it’s highly contagious… everyone is a potential victim… the world is at risk from asymptomatic super spreaders…new clusters of cases reported daily…

Everyone must get tested even though the tests are unreliable… positive antibody tests are called “infections” and “cases” even when the patient has no symptoms…every politician gets involved… media hysteria in high gear… activists demand salvation from government and Big Pharma…

Billions of dollars are authorized for fast track drug and vaccine research… simple, effective remedies are rejected while expensive, dangerous ones are pushed…presumptive diagnoses… exaggerated death statistics… falsified death certificates…

Covid 2020?

No.

AIDS in the 1980s.

Every single fraud technique being used today to “sell” CoVid hysteria was invented in the 1980s and 1990s by Tony Fauci to sell the AIDS fraud.

Are you surprised to hear AIDS called a fraud? You won’t be after you see this film.

This is the first and only film to put Fauci where he belongs: squarely in the middle of the AIDS fraud story.

Share widely.

Demolishing the AIDS fraud is one of the keys to undermining the CoVid Con and it will save millions of lives here in the US, in Africa and around the world.

Sections:

CoVid response’s social impact – 00:11

Fauci’s Public Face – 04:20

Fauci’s Power Base: AIDS – 05:41

Aids: Fauci First Fraud – 09:50

Peter Duesberg challenges HIV = AIDS – 15:24

AZT: The Untold Story – 21:22

Who Ran ACT-UP? – 29:25

Poppers: Fauci Hides the Smoking Gun – 45:47

A Look at Testing – 01:02:26

Summary – 01:28:01

Sources:

AIDS – A Second Opinion (2001), Gary Null & Associates

AIDS Inc. (2007), Gary Null

AIDS: The Unheard Voices (Dispatches series) (1987), Meditel Productions/Joan Shenton

AZT: Cause for Concern (Dispatches series) (1991), Meditel Productions/Joan Shenton

Deconstructing the Myth of AIDS (2003), Gary Null

House of Numbers: Anatomy of an Epidemic (2009), Brent W. Leung

Perspectives on the Pandemic (Episodes 3, 4, 5) (2020), Journeyman Pictures/Libby Handros & John Kirby

The Age of AIDS (Frontline) (2006), PBS/Renata Simone

The Other Side of AIDS (2004), Robin Scovill

April 18, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

The mad rush for ventilators in the Covid killing fields, Part 1

By Niall McCrae and Roger Watson | TCW Defending Freedom | April 17, 2023

‘You’ll end up on a ventilator’. That threat was frequently aimed at dissidents in the early months of Covid-19. ‘End’ is the operative word, as most patients who were put on to the mechanical breathing apparatus lost their lives. Many may have died anyway, but undoubtedly ventilators did more harm than good.

As Registered Nurses, we are concerned by needless iatrogenic deaths in the Covid-19 regime, whether by excessive use of midazolam, cardiovascular harm from vaccines, curtailed access to cancer screening and surgery, or the impact of fear-inducing  propaganda. What was the role played by ventilators in the pandemic phenomenon?

We have divided this review into ‘how’ and ‘why’. In Part One we  consider the dubious clinical rationale and adverse outcomes of such widespread treatment, and in Part Two we explore its psychological purposing. It’s not a pretty picture.

THE CLINICAL CARNAGE

IMAGINE being admitted to hospital for any reason and after testing positive for a respiratory virus, being moved to another ward, sedated into semi-consciousness and hooked up to a mechanical breathing machine. How on earth did you get here? Yet this was a common fate of hospital patients admitted in the Covid-19 outbreak in 2020. For too many, it was a silent spring, as their last breaths were taken before the tube was passed into their lungs.

A ventilator operates by a tube inserted through the mouth reaching down the windpipe into the lungs, blowing oxygen in and enabling exhalation of carbon dioxide out. The ventilated patient is normally sedated, partly to reduce distress caused by losing the ability to breathe naturally.

In an exchange with TCW editor Kathy Gyngell, former Pfizer chief scientist Mike Yeadon asserted: ‘I believe they were sedating, intubating and ventilating people admitted for non-respiratory reasons if they tested positive for Covid. My bottom line is that close to zero people should ever have been ventilated. Did you know that once sedated/unconscious and ventilated, everyone will die in due course? It’s a horribly dangerous procedure. When lifesaving like deep surgery or after trauma in a road accident, or perhaps a chest wall injury or stabbing and pneumothorax, or if you’ve an obstructive lung disease and are physically exhausted by the work of breathing, and finally a 50 per cent burn victim in agony, mechanical ventilation may be justified.’

The equipment is not standard treatment for influenza and pneumonia, a leading cause of death in older people, for whom such intervention would normally be regarded as unnecessarily invasive (and costly). Indeed, Yeadon doubts whether any patients testing positively for Covid-19 should have been ventilated.

The mad rush for ventilators began after the virus reached Italy and then spread across Europe and North America. On March 25 2020 the analytics company GlobalData estimated that about 10 per cent of the Covid-19 cases worldwide needed ventilators and that 888,000 ventilators would be needed. The company’s medical devices analyst Tina Deng said: ‘Ventilator shortages are a crucial reality as the Covid-19 outbreak continues to worsen globally. All ventilator manufacturers have full order books and hold little in stock – receiving orders not only from regular customers such as hospitals, but also directly from governments.’

Italy became the benchmark for the rest of Europe, but account was not taken of the uniqueness of the Italian health service. Before Covid-19, Italy had considerably higher bed occupancy than in the UK. With similar populations (60million for Italy; 68.5million for UK), the former has 25,000 more beds than the latter (187,000 for Italy; 162,000 for UK). In 2019 Italians were admitted to hospital a staggering 58.6million times compared with approximately 6million in the UK. Patients in Italy are much more likely to be admitted, with high use of intensive care units (ICU), where Italy has 3.1 beds per 1,000 people compared with 2.4 in the UK.

At the time of the Covid-19 outbreak the NHS had 5,000 adult and 900 child ventilators, but at least 30,000 were deemed necessary for the surge in pandemic patients. The government called on major British manufacturers such as Rolls-Royce and Dyson to build ventilators instead of engines and vacuum cleaners (see Part Two).

But ventilators were clearly no panacea. In April 2020 the Daily Mail reported data from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre on the first 777 Covid-19 patients treated in 285 ICUs, showing that only 34 of 98 ventilated patients lived to tell the tale. According to the newspaper, volunteers at the hurriedly erected Nightingale Hospital in London were told that 80 per cent of patients on ventilators would die.

On April 9 the Independent reported that ‘some working on the front lines of the coronavirus epidemic are now wondering whether (ventilators) might do more harm than expected’. On the same day the Daily Mail went almost as far as saying that doctors knew that this intervention was killing people. On April 26 an NIH pre-print reported that ‘mortality rates range from 50-97 per cent in those requiring mechanical ventilation’. Meanwhile the US publications STAT (twice) and Time both reported warnings by physicians that use of ventilators for Covid-19 patients was misguided.

As Kit Knightly remarked in OffGuardian (May 4 2020),  ‘over-use of ventilators may actually be killing people who could otherwise have survived’. Knightly’s detailed article explained why so many patients were dying, including this quote from German pulmonologist Thomas Voshaar: ‘Invasive ventilation is fundamentally bad for patients. Even if the ventilator is optimally adjusted and the care is perfect, the treatment brings with it many complications. The lungs are sensitive to two things: excess pressure and excessive oxygen concentration in the air supplied . . . The terminal failure of the lungs is often caused by too high pressure and too much oxygen.’

Rather than ameliorating pulmonary infection, ventilators increase the risk. Under sedation, the intubated, ventilated patient’s cough reflex is disabled, often leading to fluid accumulating in the lungs. These stagnant pools are prone to bacterial infection (particularly in the microbial culture of a general hospital). Survivors of ventilation are often left with lasting damage. A study published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene found that mechanical ventilation seriously damages the lungs of Covid-19 patients.

After the frenzied quest, ventilators were quietly dropped. According to the BMJ, 60 to 75 per cent of Covid-19 patients admitted to hospital in the UK in April 2020 were subjected to this apparatus. However, according to recent UK Government figures for the seven days leading up to April 6 2023, only 4 per cent of the same type of patient were ventilated. As Ingrid Torjesen said in the BMJ in January 2021: ‘The pace of the move away from invasive ventilation varies among hospitals and has been driven by greater clinical experience of treating covid patients, by data associating invasive ventilation with higher mortality.’ Yet as we have shown, there was never a good medical rationale for intubating and ventilating patients as a front-line treatment.

One ICU nurse we interviewed about the early days of Covid-19 described policy and practice on ventilation as ‘a farce’, with no consistency between physicians. But policies must have existed, whether on paper or not. Unsubstantiated anecdotes proliferated on social media of ambulant patients being intubated and ventilated to immobilise them to reduce transmission. A YouTube video by nurse Erin Marie Olszewski, featuring covertly recorded conversations in the intensive care unit of a New York hospital, tells of the tragic death of a 37-year-old man. Admitted with shortness of breath but otherwise healthy, this case illustrated how patients were regarded by hospital management as throughput, placed on ventilators simply because they had low oxygen level. In the killing fields of New York more than 80 per cent of ventilator cases died, and according to Olszewski one person who did not perish saved himself by pulling the tube out. She attributed this radical practice to orders ‘from above’ and financial incentives from the government; it was literally cash for corpses.

Most doctors and nurses who worked through the great pandemic scare of 2020 would be aghast at any implication that they were knowingly terminating lives. As with most aspects of Covid-19, the pandemic response was orchestrated at a higher level, but this does not excuse any clinician who departed from the Hippocratic Oath to first do no harm. Ventilators killed, but as we shall discuss in Part 2, they also had a much wider, malign impact on society.

April 16, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Novel Vaccine Technologies in Veterinary Medicine: A Herald to Human Medicine Vaccines

Explosion of Genetic Vaccines in Animals Gets Human Attention

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | April 16, 2023

The mRNA and adenoviral DNA COVID-19 vaccine debacle in humans has set populations on edge, distrustful of poorly conceived genetic technology. Meanwhile the field has advanced considerably in veterinary medicine. While these shots may protect animals from pathogens over the short term, what are the implications for our food supply? Any of the genetic material transmissible to humans through consumption? Raw or cooked? These and other questions are coming up as more information is being brought forward.

Aida and colleagues have graphically summarized the genetic technologies in use as of 2021 in veterinary medicine. In the consumer meat category at present, only swine are of concern given the use of plasmid DNA, replication incompetent viral vector, and RNA replicon products. Do these technologies cause noninfectious diseases in the animals? Can any of the genetic material survive denaturing during curing and cooking? How about pork intestines harvested for the production of heparin widely used in human medicine? It is conceivable that genetic incorporation of foreign RNA or DNA into humans and production of antigens for example, porcine endemic diarrhea or influenza A, could have untoward effects including autoimmunity similar to that with the COVID-19 vaccines?

Aida V, Pliasas VC, Neasham PJ, North JF, McWhorter KL, Glover SR, Kyriakis CS. Novel Vaccine Technologies in Veterinary Medicine: A Herald to Human Medicine Vaccines. Front Vet Sci. 2021 Apr 15;8:654289. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.654289. PMID: 33937377; PMCID: PMC8083957.


Now is a good time for veterinary and human medicine including the FDA and USDA, to come together and review the published studies of these new products on genetic transmissibility to humans and its potential implications. The Aida paper does not even mention the possibility of collateral impact to humans. One can see that developers, sponsors, and authors are blinded with infatuation for molecular biology and have lost sight of biological product safety in the food supply.

Aida V, Pliasas VC, Neasham PJ, North JF, McWhorter KL, Glover SR, Kyriakis CS. Novel Vaccine Technologies in Veterinary Medicine: A Herald to Human Medicine Vaccines. Front Vet Sci. 2021 Apr 15;8:654289. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.654289. PMID: 33937377; PMCID: PMC8083957.

April 16, 2023 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

Droughts developing more rapidly says global study

By Paul Homewood | Not A Lot Of People Know That | April 16, 2023

For the first time a new study has confirmed droughts across the world are developing more rapidly as a result of climate change.

The international study identifies flash droughts – which intensify in a matter of weeks – have become more frequent since the late 1950s over 74% of the world’s 33 global regions, especially those over North and East Asia, the Sahara and Europe.

The Met Office’s Dr Peili Wu is one of the paper’s authors. He said: “The transition to more flash droughts is being driven by a combination of rainfall deficit along with amplified rates of soil moisture loss.”

The paper highlights that the transition from slower-onset droughts to flash droughts is projected to expand to most land areas. This transition will become most pronounced with higher rates of global greenhouse emissions.

Obviously, a drought begins with a period with a relative absence of rain or snow. However, increased temperatures and sometimes stronger winds can rapidly amplify the loss of moisture in the soil, exacerbating the speed of the drought’s onset and impacts. This rapidity can lead to the creation of a flash drought. Droughts in their many forms can last for different time periods, from weeks to decades.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2023/droughts-developing-more-rapidly-says-global-study

This has all the trappings of a study written purposely to “prove” a preconceived agenda.

It is of course predicated on a half degree rise in temperatures, the sort of difference between temperatures in Sheffield and Birmingham. Does Birmingham have flash droughts and Sheffield none? Silly question really.

As Dr Wu admits, “flash droughts” do not actually exist, he himself had to invent the term a few years ago, no doubt to pin them on global warming.

The level of moisture in soils is governed by all sorts of factors, but particularly agricultural practices. To attempt to tease out a climate influence is to all intents and purposes impossible, as it would be undetectable.

But there are other serious issues about this study. The first is that global warming has made the world wetter on the whole.

The second is that extra CO2 in the atmosphere has helped to green the planet. In particular, higher concentrations of CO2 mean that plants lose less water to the air. In other words, transpiration is reduced.

Thirdly global cooling in the 1960s, 70s and 80s led directly to massively severe droughts across a wide swathe of the world, from the Sahel across to India and China. The cause was the expansion of the polar air mass which pushed the rainbelts towards the tropics.

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000074891

Global warming does not lead to more severe droughts, whether flash or not – global cooling does.

Indeed, the world during the ice age was a very dry one, as cold air can hold less moisture. And it is dry air which sucks the moisture out of the ground like a sponge. That is why cold deserts like the Gobi are every bit as dry as the Sahara.

There is very little global data with which to analyse droughts, but there is plenty in the US.

And NOAA’s data is quite explicit. Droughts are now much less severe than they were in the past.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/pdsi/all/3/1895-2023

I am quite sure that Dr Wu and his colleagues are perfectly aware of all of this. That is why they have invented flash droughts, which with some dodgy computer modelling has enabled them to claim something which does not exist.

April 16, 2023 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | Leave a comment

Zika: The Pandemic That Never Was

BY DR ROGER WATSON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | APRIL 14, 2023

Roger Daltry of mod rock band The Who screamed “We won’t get fooled again” in its lengthy and punchy signature song. But it appears we have. Almost everything that those on the sceptical side of the Covid narrative recognise about the hyped-up nature of the recent pandemic will see parallels in Overturning Zika: the pandemic that never was by Randall S. Bock.

Bock is a U.S. physician who has long harboured scepticism about something that most of us had completely forgotten: the Zika ‘pandemic’ of 2015 in Brazil. Like COVID-19, this was accompanied by dire predictions of deaths in the millions and, parallel to the ridiculous and extraordinary locking down and social distancing mandates of 2020-2021, Zika was accompanied by ludicrous suggestions that women should not have babies and even abort the ones they were carrying. Some did.

Zika is a mosquito-borne virus that is present in South America. According to Wikipedia, it can be associated with the birth defect microcephaly, whereby a child is born with a smaller than normal brain. One source, GAVI (‘The Vaccine Alliance‘) claimed in 2022 that one third of babies exposed pre-birth to Zika developed microcephaly. However, it then proceeded to say there is a “continued need to develop a safe and effective vaccine for preventing Zika virus infections during pregnancy”. GAVI has a vested interest in vaccine production and distribution.

It is worth pointing out that the author of this book is not a tin-foil hat wearing virus sceptic, ‘anti-vaxxer’ or conspiracy theorist. He does not deny the existence of the Zika virus, or specifically deny its potential to cause microcephaly and does not ascribe the manufacturing of the Zika pandemic to evil forces determined to reduce the population of the world. Instead, he examines the evidence as it stands, contextualises this within the scientific paradigm and examines some of the social and media forces at work which fan the flames. Thus, a smouldering fire of (misplaced) suspicion that there was an outbreak of Zika-related microcephaly in Brazil soon became a forest fire of panic across the country and elsewhere in the region.

The simple facts are that a case of microcephaly was attributed to Zika without a shred of evidence that Zika was the cause. Microcephaly occurs in possibly one in every 800-5,000 babies. If you go out armed with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail and other cases of microcephaly were soon identified and misattributed to Zika. In 2019, when Zika was a distant blip in the rear-view mirror, Bock tried to publish a short review demonstrating that the accompanying pandemic had been a mistake, but major medical journals refused to publish it. This was not because it was inaccurate or that what was contained was not fairly common knowledge among the medical community, but in case it undermined public trust in public health initiatives related to Covid. This is what is now referred to as ‘malinformation’; something that is true but uncomfortable for those controlling the narrative.

The story, briefly, is that Zika was considered the cause of a cluster of cases of microcephaly. This was done against a background of poor baseline information about the extent of microcephaly and without specific laboratory testing for the presence of Zika. A purported Zika test had never been standardised and Zika and its close relative dengue fever are almost identical genetically and almost impossible to distinguish. Scepticism about the existence of Zika, based on the poor science applied to its characterisation was quashed and likewise scepticism about the link between it and microcephaly.

In the sceptical free zone that was allowed to exist around the Zika microcephaly story, local, national, regional and international panic ensued. Pregnant women lived in fear that their babies were going to be born brain damaged, the WHO issued travel advice related to the 2016 Brazil Olympics and NPR, never known to let a good pandemic go to waste, reported fears amongst athletes and staff at the games over Zika infection.

However, when accurate Zika testing became available in 2016, the purported link between the virus and microcephaly failed to hold. Zika-related microcephaly, now described as ‘rare’, just disappeared. The only reasonable conclusion, in the absence of a vaccine or additional preventive measures, was that it probably did not exist. In the meantime, pregnant women had been smothering themselves in insecticides potentially harmful to their unborn babies and the family planning lobby had got to work with increased calls for ‘net zero’ related to birth rates.

Bock traces the main characters involved from the group of physicians who initially raised the alarm, through incompetent national health officials up to the ubiquitous eminence grise, without whom no pandemic is complete, Anthony Fauci who said all the usual things about vaccines and public health measures. In this case, rather than being a driving force, Fauci jumped on the Zika bandwagon. What had started as a cock-up soon became a conspiracy. Fauci used Zika to “wage war” on pandemics. We now know what he meant.

The book is written in a very familiar and even colloquial style. It is reasonably easy to read and not too heavy, within the text, on scientific jargon. It does suffer, however, from a somewhat samizdat style of presentation and there is a great deal of repetition of what the appropriate scientific procedures should have been. That said, the opening synopsis is very helpful, makes all the main points and stands alone. The accompanying diagrams and figures are far too busy, poorly produced, and not signposted properly. On the whole, some ruthless editing may have helped to produce a more concise text. Nevertheless, this is a book that should be read.

Randall S. Bock (2023) Overturning Zika: the pandemic that never was. Drivestraight Publishing, Istanbul, is available to purchase on Amazon.

Dr. Roger Watson is Academic Dean of Nursing at Southwest Medical University, China. He has a PhD in biochemistry.

April 15, 2023 Posted by | Book Review, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

The Indoctrinators, Part 3: Bill Gates

This is the third in our series about four well-known men whose purposeful social engineering over the years has undermined national democracies and economies, and created fertile ground for the final realisation of their post democracy dream of a global socialist/fascist world, controlled by supranational organisations such as the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and of course, themselves. They are George Soros (you can read Tuesday’s article here), Klaus Schwab (yesterday’s article is here), Bill Gates (today) and David Attenborough.

By Karen Harradine | TCW Defending Freedom | April 13, 2023

BILL Gates has a messiah complex. His obsession with ‘climate change’, vaccines and people control is proving dangerous for the world. Only a few weeks ago he gave voice to his latest megalomaniac plan for a global pandemic prison state. And as the past proves, what Gates wants he usually gets.

Together with his fellow Indoctrinators, George Soros and Klaus Schwab, 67-year-old Gates has not missed the opportunity provided by the Covid-19 crisis (which he helped to engineer) to further his revolutionist ‘global development’ green agenda. Following their precedent, he too created a foundation through which to impose his ghastly visions on an unfortunate world.

Since its inception in 2000, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), under its philanthropic guise, has found plenty of useful idiots across world governments willing to fund and support it. Successive witless British Prime Ministers, up to and including Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, have fallen under his spell with Gates hugely benefiting from this priceless endorsement and publicity. Given his malign agenda, Western taxpayers have literally been paying for their own demise.

Gates is an enthusiastic partner of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and attendee at their gatherings in Davos, which he typically uses to announce his latest plans to drain the West of its resources to fund his vaccine and climate change lunacy. In 1999, he formed the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), which he cleverly partnered with the United Nations (UN), BMGF, foreign aid agencies and pharmaceutical companies. It was to become, together with the BMGF, the second biggest source of funding to the World Health Organisation (WHO).

More than 80 per cent of the WHO’s budget comes from voluntary contributions by member states and donors. In 2021, the BMGF was the second largest contributor with $375million, and GAVI the fourth with $245million. Both have a long history of influencing the WHO (the BMGF’s first donation was in1998). Uniquely the BMGF became its official partner in 2017, further focusing the WHO’s public health priorities on to vaccines. An enabler of and publicist for the toxic Covid-19 vaccine, his close connection with the WHO has reaped him huge profits. 

The WHO’s deeply disturbing proposed Pandemic Treaty effectively puts into action Gates’s planned grasp for global control as he detailed in his 2022 book, ‘How to Prevent the Next Pandemic’. It has been long in the planning.

In 2003, on a Davos panel called ‘Science for the Global Good’, Gates announced his foundation’s gift of $200million to the US National Institutes of Health to set up the Grand Challenges in Global Health, a vehicle for shifting US tax money into the developing world in pursuit of Gates’s own interests. 

In 2010, Gates and his wife heralded a ‘decade of vaccines’ at Davos, pledging $10billion to fund vaccines in ‘poor countries’, a vaccine zealotry which has had some appalling outcomes for which Gates has expressed no remorse. In one example, nearly half a million children in India were paralysed after taking BMGF-funded polio vaccine. Despite such appalling consequences, Gates, with an honorary knighthood in the bag from the Queen, is still widely regarded as a benign philanthropist. There’s no doubt that money buys reputation.

Like Soros, Gates has a prominent platform on the WEF website to promote green investments worth billions of dollars. A devotee of the UN’s Agenda 2030, Gates is co-chair of the Global Commission on Adaptation.

Today, thanks to our unprincipled politicians, Gates has a hotline to Downing Street and Britain finds itself in the clutches of a megalomaniac. His tentacles reach far and wide, from shaping energy policies and dominating scientific organisations and academic research, to financing the mainstream media.

In 1997, Tony Blair invited him into Downing Street to sell his flawed computer system, going on to host him several times, implementing policies based on his dictates and in his financial interests. It was an association Blair was to prosper from, later getting $3.2million for his Global Africa initiative and more than $25.2million for his Institute of Global Change.

In 2010, Gates and his wife visited the Department for International Development (DFID) to hector ministers on supporting foreign aid while promoting his Living Proof project, funded also by Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Billionaires persuading politicians to plunder public resources to fund their own megalomaniac ambitions is not just deeply distasteful but wrong. Yet between 2011 and 2019, Gates got DFID to give over £60million for BMGF development projects.

In 2016, George Osborne pledged £2.5billion to another BMGF association, the Ross Fund. Three years later, the BMGF and World Bank ‘partnered’ with DFID to shovel more taxpayers’ money to foreign despots in the name of ‘education systems’. 

In November 2020, after Johnson played his part in the hysteria over Covid-19, Gates met him and pharmaceutical companies and plotted how to prevent ‘pandemics’. Johnson then gave £800million to the BMGF’s vaccine initiative, COVAX.

A year later, Johnson reunited with Gates and promised a further £400million to fund his green investments.

In Sunak Gates has a willing apprentice. In February, the pair met to discuss wasting more money on Gates’s terrifying ‘climate change’ goals.

The BMGF and its subsidiaries like the Global Fund, which promotes the ominous sounding ‘health security’, has, since its inception in 2002, managed to extract an astonishing £4.5billion from the UK government, with another £1billion earmarked for the next two years. When did British taxpayers vote for that?

Millions today in this country can no longer afford both food and energy costs, they are medically neglected and live in substandard housing. Questions must be asked why politicians are funding this Indoctrinator to dictate policies that are provenly detrimental to British citizens and are only to the benefit of one man. The multi- billionaire land owner, Bill Gates. If a vampire is invited into a home, best be prepared for a bloodbath.

The last in this series will focus on green evangelist Sir David Attenborough.

April 14, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »